Page 65 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have also included a list and a series of plans which outline the changes that occurred as outlined in annexure D to this draft variation process from the time that the September 1992 proposals for the North Watson area were first made public. Our conclusion on that is contained at paragraph 6.7 on page 22, where we state:
The Committee considers that on any reasonable ground the changes made to the original proposal are significant and it is apparent that these changes were the result of progressive input through the community consultation process.
Madam Speaker, we then referred to the policy of urban infill. I might add that we have taken on board the concerns of the Watson Community Association, and a number of other individuals, and what we have said to the Planning Authority is outlined in our recommendation on page 24 at paragraph 6.16. It basically says that they should undertake a round of preconsultation to try to get some of these issues identified before they go into the formal variation process outlined under the Territory Plan. The committee understands and acknowledges that the Planning Authority is moving in this direction already, and we commend them for doing so.
Madam Speaker, turning now to the policy of urban renewal, on pages 25, 26 and 27 we have commented on the question of urban infill. Our recommendation is:
... the Committee recommends that the government require the ACT Planning Authority to specify the maximum number of residential dwellings to be permitted on each Block affected by the land use category 'entertainment, accommodation and leisure and residential'.
The reason for that is to ensure that there is an absolute ceiling of permanent residential, and by "permanent residential" we mean standard residential in the traditional sense but also serviced apartment-type development. What we are saying is that, where you have serviced apartment-type development, you end up generating a long-term community in that serviced apartment-style accommodation and that that should be taken into account in assessing the 1,300 ceiling that we believe is the maximum that should be allowed in this area.
Madam Speaker, the other matter that we dealt with was the question of the North Canberra area strategy, and we have outlined the analysis which we have undertaken as far as that is concerned. The financial viability of the draft variation was probably the matter that generated the most debate and consideration by members of the committee, and I believe that there has been a sensible approach taken, at the end of the day, to having this matter settled. I believe - I do not believe that I am exposing matters considered in the committee - that it would have been almost impossible to come to a unified decision about the questions that we raised because, quite frankly, people had adopted a particular view about methodology. What we have attempted to do is to provide the opportunity, as requested by the North Watson Subcommittee of the Watson Community Association, for an independent analysis - independent of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning, independent of the Watson Community Association, and independent of the Planning Committee - on this particular question for this particular variation because we believed, as the last remaining issue, that it was essential that we try to get a unified position.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .